Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy: Hiring, Promotion and Retention

Transcription

1 University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2012 Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy: Hiring, Promotion and Retention David A. Santacroce University of Michigan Law School, Bryan L. Adamson Seattle University School of Law Calvin G. C. Pang University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law Bradford Colbert William Mitchell College of Law Kathy Hessler Lewis & Clark Law School See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Santacroce, David A. "Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy: Hiring, Promotion and Retention." B. L. Adamson et al, co-authors. J. Legal Ed. 62, no. 1 (2012): This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact mlaw.repository@umich.edu.

2 Authors David A. Santacroce, Bryan L. Adamson, Calvin G. C. Pang, Bradford Colbert, Kathy Hessler, Katherine R. Kruse, Robert R. Kuehn, and Mary Helen McNeal This article is available at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository:

3 II5 Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy: Hiring, Promotion and Retention Bryan L. Adamson, Calvin Pang, Bradford Colbert, Kathy Hessler, Katherine Kruse, Robert Kuehn, Mary Helen McNeal and David Santacroce Introduction The Chair of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Section on Clinical Legal Education appointed us in 2005 to the Task Force on the Status of Clinicians and the Legal Academy (Task Force) to examine who is teaching in clinical programs and using clinical methodologies in American law schools and to identify the most appropriate models for clinical appointments within the legal academy.' Our charges reflected two ongoing concerns: i) the need to collect valid, reliable, and helpful data that would inform discussions on the breadth of clinical education in the legal academy and the status of clinical educators within the academy; and 2) the need to have a foundation for complex conversations on how American law schools should view and value their clinical teachers. The first primarily describes the present, while the second carries implications for the future. The first task, the collection of data, was accomplished through the Center for the Study of Applied Legal Education (CSALE). In late 2007, CSALE sent a "master survey" to clinical program directors at the 188 American Bar Association (ABA) then fully-accredited law schools. Part of that master survey included a "staffing sub-survey" that was designed to be answered by each person teaching in a clinic or field placement program at those 188 schools. One hundred forty-five schools responded to the master survey and 357 clinical educators from 70 law schools responded to the staffing sub- The authors teach at the Seattle University School of Law, University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law, William Mitchell College of Law, Lewis & Clark Law School, University of Nevada Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law, Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Syracuse University College of Law, and University of Michigan Law School, respectively. i. Charles Weisselberg, AALS Section on Clinical Legal Education, Task Force on Clinicians and the Academy i (Nov. 4, 2005) (on file with the Task Force). Disclaimer in accordance with AALS Executive Committee Regulation 1.4: The opinions and recommendations expressed by the Task Force are not necessarily those of the AALS Section of Clinical Legal Education and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Journal of Legal Education, Volume 62, Number i (August Qoi2)

4 116 Journal oflegal Education survey. 2 The results of both surveys, available at provide insight into various dimensions of clinical legal education, "including program design and structure, pedagogical techniques and practices, common program challenges, and the treatment of applied legal educators in the legal academy."3 CSALE intends to update its data every three years, thus creating an ongoing longitudinal review of clinical legal education. Data from the CSALE surveys appears throughout, documenting the growing array of academic appointments for clinical faculty members. Importantly, this data informs our discussion of the various models of clinical legal education and the place of clinical legal education and clinical faculty within the legal academy and its curriculum. Using CSALE data, our report herein addresses the Task Force's second objective: to identify and evaluate the most appropriate models for clinical appointments within the legal academy. Our examination revealed that clinical faculty are employed under a myriad of appointment models, including tenure track. However, despite great strides in the growth of clinical legal education in the last 30 years, equality between clinical and non-clinical faculty remains elusive at most schools.4 Drawing from the significance of events arising in the course of developing this report, listening to the diverse voices of clinical legal educators at town hall meetings and through their completed CSALE surveys, reviewing the historical underpinnings of American legal education, and wrestling with several tension points, we arrived at four core principles and three recommendations regarding the status of full-time clinical faculty, which follow below. Our report goes beyond an articulation of core principles and recommendations regarding clinical legal education and clinical faculty status. We also aim to help law schools make informed choices about their clinical programs during a time that portends both great promise for curricular reform in legal education and great risk for loss of security of position for clinical faculty in the academy. Although we have concluded that only one statustenure for full-time clinical faculty-is ultimately appropriate, the Task Force recognizes that moving law schools toward its recommendations may be gradual for even the best-intentioned institutions, and that schools may need to employ a hybrid of models to staff their clinical programs as interim measures. Our report is also written to assist those law schools by elucidating for all 2. We used a chi-squared goodness of fit test to conclude that the results from both the master and staffing sub-surveys were representative of the target survey population as a whole. The staffing sub-survey, from which most of the data in this report was taken, was more heavily populated by clinical educators from schools ranking in the top too of the 2007 U.S. News & World Report rankings. 3. Ctr. for the Study of Applied Legal Educ. (CSALE), Report on the Survey i (2008). 4. References to "non-clinical faculty" in this report denote faculty members who do not principally teach clinical courses and are tenured or on tenure track. This definitional choice reflects the fact that the availability of tenure is the norm for non-clinical faculty. We recognize that other statuses exist for non-clinical faculty, but that the predominant status model is tenure.

5 Clinical Faculty in the LegalAcademy 117 status models good practices consistent with the four principles that underlie the recommendations. To that end, we propose good practices for five status models-unitary tenure track, clinical tenure track, long-term contract, shortterm contract, and clinical fellowships-commonly used for clinical faculty at American law schools. Although numerous titles and terms suggest that more than five models exist, we selected these models because they approximate the range of choices considered or used at almost every American law school. Part I of our report presents an overview of the nature of clinical legal education, the regulation of clinical faculty status, and a description of the five full-time status models that have formed the basis for our analysis. Part II describes the recommendations in more detail. It first explains the four core principles on which the recommendations lie and then further develops our recommendations in favor of a unitary tenure model for full-time clinical faculty over clinical tenure and long-term contract models, while recognizing a continuing but limited role for short-term contract and clinical fellowship positions within a program staffed primarily by tenured and tenure-track clinical faculty. Part III discusses and responds to some of the likely "tension points" raised by our recommendation for a unitary tenure model. Part IV concludes with more detailed descriptions of how all five models ought to be implemented consistent with the four core principles and recommendations. I. Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy This section sets out the building blocks for our core principles and recommendations, providing a description of the enterprise of clinical legal education, the current standards and interpretations that regulate the status of clinical faculty in the academy, and a snapshot of the status of clinical faculty in American law schools today. Part A describes the unique teaching, service, and scholarship attributes of clinical legal education, explaining the basic structure and method of clinical teaching, the deeply-rooted social justice mission of clinical legal education, and scholarship by clinical faculty. Part B describes the development of ABA regulation of full-time clinical faculty status through its accreditation standards and provides an overview of the governing regulations today. Using the CSALE data, Part C describes the five predominant status models of full-time clinical faculty and gives an overview of what the CSALE data reveals about the governance rights, teaching responsibilities, scholarship requirements, and support for scholarship in each of the various models. A. The Nature of Clinical Legal Education i. Clinical Teaching Clinical legal education is steeped in what the Carnegie and Best Practices Reports describe as "context-based education."5 The primary course materials 5. William M. Sullivan, Anne Colby, Judith Welch Wegner, Lloyd Bond & Lee S. Shulman,

6 Journal of Legal Education for clinical and field placement instruction are cases, specifically law students' experiences representing actual clients. Client representation occurs within a host of legal contexts: civil and criminal litigation; business, organizational, or individual transactional needs; alternative dispute resolution; and community development and administrative advocacy. 6 Cases arising from these contexts are used as vehicles for developing both the practical skills and professional judgment necessary for legal practice. In both law clinics and field placement programs, students are typically placed in the role of lawyer, representing clients under circumstances that are complex, undefined, and ever-shifting. Law school clinics and field placement programs vary widely in subject matter, and even within a program, students may experience a different mix of challenges depending on what arises in their cases. Despite these variations, clinical legal education uniformly presents students with the opportunity to experience the complexity of legal issues as they arise in the lives and situations of real clients; the complexity and indeterminacy of facts as they are developed and analyzed in the course of legal representation; and the opportunity to engage in a lawyer-client relationship in which they must employ interpersonal interviewing and counseling skills to ascertain clients' goals and to integrate law, procedure, legal ethics, and policy in pursuing those goals. Clinical pedagogy may be best described as a methodology of "Prepare- Perform-Reflect." Students typically take the lead in performing the essential tasks of lawyering: client interviewing and counseling; factual investigation; negotiation; mediation; oral advocacy; document drafting (e.g., letters, memoranda, position statements, court pleadings); and resolving ethical dilemmas. Clinical faculty provide the supervision necessary to support the students' preparation for events such as client meetings, witness interviews, hearings, and court, mediation or negotiation appearances, and they structure the students' critical reflection following those events. Clinic faculty guide students to engage in thoughtful planning, give detailed feedback on student performance, and engage students in studied reflection that ties their casework to larger issues in related areas of law, social justice, and lawyering. Because students in clinical programs most often represent poor, marginalized clients, clinic courses offer unparalleled opportunities for students to critically reflect on the fairness and justice of laws and the operation of legal systems in the lives of clients. Educating Lawyers: Preparation for the Profession of Law 95 (Jossey-Bass 2007) [hereinafter Carnegie Report]; Roy Stuckey and Others, Best Practices for Legal Education: A Vision and A Road Map 141 (CLEA 2007) [hereinafter Best Practices Report]. 6. Field placement programs (i.e., externships) vary in design but generally utilize a distinct mode of instruction. Students work for academic credit in legal settings outside the law school under the supervision of practicing attorneys and may also attend related seminar classes taught at the law school by a member of the faculty. Kelly S. Terry, Externships: A Signature Pedagogy for the Apprenticeship of Professional Identity and Purpose, Legal Educ. 240, 243 (2oog); see also ABA, Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, Std. 305 ( ) [hereinafter ABA Standards] (setting requirements for study outside the classroom, including field placement programs).

7 Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy li 1 Although law clinics vary widely in their design, virtually all clinic courses utilize three basic modes of instruction: i) seminar discussion; 2) case rounds; and 3) one-on-one supervision.7 In live-client clinic seminars, students learn the basic knowledge necessary to their casework-the doctrinal, legal, procedural, ethical, social, political, or economic substance that they will be required to apply in context. The seminars also serve as an opportunity for instruction in professional skills students will need in practice, such as client interviewing and counseling, negotiation, or trial advocacy. In field placement programs, seminars may address similar topics or more general topics designed to develop students' professional identities. In both contexts, the seminar component also may be used to learn ethical rules related to the students' practice or to read and discuss articles that raise larger policy, social justice, or lawyering issues. The myriad concepts which underlie professional skills and values learning have their own substantive and extensive pedagogical histories. However, because no general textbook can capture the depth and specificity of information needed to instruct students in their casework, clinic faculty typically develop individualized course materials that cover a range of subjects. Those materials often compile local substantive and procedural law, excerpt lawyering skills or other practice materials, and include readings that analyze or critique law, legal systems, or the lawyering process.' Case rounds are a special type of seminar class or group session designed to generate student discussion of practice, policy, or ethical issues that arise in their cases, to help students draw general lessons about law or lawyering from their specific cases, and to build camaraderie by learning about each other's cases and from each other.9 In live-client clinics, students may be assigned to present a particular aspect of one of their cases for case round discussion. Other times, professors may identify a recurring issue for discussion and draw out perspectives on it from the work of students in different cases. In case rounds, students may discuss themes or policy issues that run through cases, wrestle with ethical issues that have arisen, brainstorm strategy, provide peer feedback on student work, or help other clinic students prepare for an upcoming event in a case by mooting legal arguments, role-playing client interviews, or practicing witness examinations. For the clinical faculty member, case rounds demand more than a passing understanding of student cases. They require thoughtful preparation and distillation of factual, legal, ethical, or procedural themes, and careful development of classroom methods through which students may illuminate those themes. 7. For a discussion of case rounds in live client clinics, see Susan Bryant & Elliot S. Milstein, Rounds: A "Signature Pedagogy" for Clinical Education?, 14 Clinical L. Rev. 195, 197 (2007). Most field placement programs incorporate some discussion of legal work, but the content varies depending on how the program has defined the clinical faculty member's relationship to the field placements and the placements' legal work. 8. Clinical faculty teaching in a field placement program coordinate all placements, train and supervise field supervisors to ensure the pedagogical soundness of the placements, teach the seminar, and guide the externs' reflections. 9. See generally Bryant & Milstein, supra note 7.

8 120 Journal oflegal Education In field placement programs, the content of case round discussions may vary due to confidentiality issues,'o but their function is similar: facilitating the students' learning from their experiences. The "combination of work experiences in actual practice settings and guided reflection on those practice experiences in the seminar provides students with an ideal opportunity to explore the moral, ethical, and professional dilemmas that lawyers regularly encounter."" As in law clinic courses, students learn the fundamental values of the profession, and observe and adopt the professional norms that will guide their careers while getting hands-on training and experience with professional skills.,2 Perhaps the most important clinical teaching occurs in one-on-one supervision sessions in which clinical teachers and field placement supervisors meet with individual students or student teams to discuss the progress on their cases, provide feedback, reflect on events that have occurred in the cases, and plan for next steps.' 3 Broadly speaking, supervision sessions concern themselves with four goals: deepening students' knowledge of relevant laws, rules, regulations or procedures necessary to the next steps in a case; examining existing and emerging facts that impact the client's goals or case strategy; identifying and preparing students for upcoming tasks; and fostering the students' self-knowledge through guided reflection (through dialogue or journals) on their professional performance, professional role, and the manifold relationships between the student, client, mentor, and others involved in the representation. Most clinical faculty formalize these sessions into their weekly schedules and prepare teaching goals for them. Thus, in every sense, the nature of clinical teaching connects the cognitive, practical, and ethical aspects of lawyering, and provides students opportunities to apply their knowledge and develop their professional identities while meeting clients' needs. As a result of its unique pedagogical structure, clinical teaching is not only intellectually challenging, but time-intensive and unpredictable. It takes patience and persistence to develop in a student the legal, procedural, strategic, and professional skills required to perform the tasks of a lawyer in a real case. The additional reflective component of clinical pedagogy requires teachers to constantly step back from the demands of the casework and strategize how to Io. See, e.g., Alexis Anderson, Arlene Kanter, & Cindy Slane, Ethics in Externships: Confidentiality, Conflicts, and Competence Issues in the Field and In the Classroom, 1o Clinical L. Rev. 473 (2004) (discussing an externship model where the clinical faculty member has no responsibility for the students' cases and is therefore precluded from knowing confidential client information); Margaret Martin Barry, Jon Dubin & Peter Joy, Clinical Education for the Millennium: The Third Wave, 7 Clinical L. Rev. 1 (2000) (identifying a "hybrid externship model" where clinical faculty have joint responsibility, with the field supervisors, for the students' legal work). II. Terry, supra note 6, at Id. 13. See Ann Shalleck, Clinical Contexts: Theory and Practice in Law and Supervision, 21 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 109 (' ); Margaret Martin Barry, Clinical Supervision: Walking that Fine Line, 2 Clinical L. Rev. 137 (1995).

9 Clinical Faculty in the LegalAcademy 121 structure discussions with individual students and among groups of students to maximize student learning in both individual supervision settings and case round settings. The work of clinical teaching is aided by a high level of student engagement in representing real clients whose legal affairs depend on the students' mastery of the relevant law, procedure, facts, and necessary lawyering skills. However, as with the work of all lawyering, clinical teaching lacks predictability, nor can it easily be cabined within a planned time frame. The flexible, responsive, and individualized nature of clinical teaching and client representation deprive clinical faculty of the "economies of repetition" that classroom teachers enjoy. Although the demands of traditional classroom teaching are also quite intensive in early years of teaching, the time required to prepare a class diminishes as the class is repeatedly taught. This is generally not the case with clinical teaching, where required substantive and procedural knowledge is driven by emergent case facts. Thus, the relevant law and procedure may vary from case to case, even within a single clinical course. As a result, clinical teaching is time intensive, and may even expand its time demands as clinical faculty become more deeply engaged in community and policy initiatives that reach beyond the work of their students. 2. The Social Justice Mission of Clinical Legal Education The history of American clinical legal education has imbued the current clinical culture with a bent toward social justice and has attracted faculty whose practice backgrounds commonly reflect a commitment to public service, especially to society's most vulnerable populations.4 Law school clinical programs reflect this social justice mission in various ways. Some emphasize law reform-either through test case litigation or legislative advocacy-with the goals of exposing students to law as a tool for social change. Another manifestation of clinical legal education's social justice mission is a focus on community or collaborative lawyering, which emphasizes understanding the social, political, and economic dynamic in a local community, developing non-traditional lawyering skills, and exploring an alternative lawyer-client relationship that rejects traditional notions of power. Still other clinics may incorporate community education into their work, involving students in researching and preparing training materials, conducting training sessions to assist non-lawyers to better advocate for themselves, or assisting social service, education, mental health, medical, and other professionals in understanding legal principles. In doing so, the social justice mission of clinical programs also serves as a vehicle for another vital aspect of professional identity formation, that of shaping students as leaders in the communities they will come to serve. A clinical program with a strong social justice mission will typically focus on providing legal representation to clients who are excluded or otherwise 14. See generally Jon Dubin, Clinical Design for Social Justice Imperatives, 51 S.M.U. L. Rev (1998); Jane H. Aiken, Provocateurs for Justice, 7 Clinical L. Rev. 287 (2001); Stephen Wizner, Beyond Skills Training, 7 Clinical L. Rev. 327 (2001).

10 122 Journal oflegal Education marginalized in the legal process, work closely with the local community to identify areas in which legal services are deficient, and attempt to tie client representation to larger law reform or social reform agendas.5 Clinical programs often incorporate a social justice mission by exposing students to a wide range of lawyering techniques to advance the interests of a specialized group of clients. For example, a clinic focusing on domestic violence might represent clients in securing protective orders, provide training on the law to the police and social services community, lobby for enhanced legislation to protect survivors of domestic violence, and implement a "court watch program" to evaluate the judiciary's treatment of litigants in these cases. Such a practice exposes students to various lawyering skills and strategies that enhance advocacy for a select population. As a result of this social justice mission, the community service responsibilities of clinical faculty are often higher and more intensive than the service responsibilities of a typical doctrinal classroom teacher. The typical load of faculty service work is augmented for clinical faculty by the substantial time they devote to community engagement, including developing and maintaining good relationships with judges, members of the bar, and local legal services and advocacy groups. Conducting or coordinating continuing legal education seminars, participating on bar committees, and serving on boards are just a few examples of service in furtherance of the social justice and law school missions. For those teaching in field placement programs, cultivating and maintaining these relationships is even more essential. This engagement benefits law schools, which often rely on clinical faculty to actively engage the surrounding community. To be sure, many, if not most, schools actively promote their clinical programs and faculty-on school websites, in newsletters, in speaking engagements-as emblematic of the institution's commitment to the surrounding community and to social justice. Community engagement also benefits the quality of clinical legal education by keeping clinical teachers conversant on emerging issues in their fields of practice and opening doors to new learning opportunities for students. The social justice mission of clinics also requires institutional support to thrive. To best assess and respond to community needs, clinical faculty need longevity and job stability. Moreover, the representation of marginalized clients often places clinical faculty at odds with established institutional powers. As a result, a number of clinical programs have been attacked by legislators, alumni, business interests and even judges themselves over their choice of clients or handling of legal matters, and clinical faculty may need institutional protection from political interference from groups hostile to clinical program cases and social justice goals.'" 15. Id.; see also Antoinette Sedillo-Lopez, Learning Through Service in a Clinical Setting: The Effect of Specialization on Social Justice and Skills Training, 7 Clinical L. Rev. 307 (2001). 16. See Robert R. Kuehn & Peter A. Joy, Lawyering in the Academy: The Intersection of Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibility,59 J. Legal Educ. 97, 98 (2009).

11 Clinical Faculty in the LegalAcademy Scholarship by Clinical Faculty Clinical faculty contribute to scholarly discourse in at least three ways: i) by producing law review articles and books about law, policy, and procedure from a unique and valuable perspective embedded in practice; 2) by producing uniquely clinical scholarship that deepens the understanding of clinical program design and pedagogy; and 3) by producing educational, legal, and policy reform materials that entail research and policy analysis beyond what law practice typically provides. As clinical faculty have become more established within the academy, their scholarly work in all of these areas has been recognized through both traditional tenure and alternative promotion and retention standards. Straddling the line between practice and academia, clinical faculty are well-positioned to identify legal issues worthy of extensive critical analysis in traditional scholarship, and when they engage in traditional legal scholarship, clinical faculty bring a different and valuable perspective to the legal academy. Most traditional doctrinal legal scholarship accesses law through published opinions in appellate cases. By contrast, clinical faculty see legal doctrine, theory, and processes from the "bottom up." The law to which they are regularly exposed in clinical teaching is the law as it is implemented by ground-level legal decision makers like trial judges, magistrates, administrative law judges, court clerks, local officials, and police officers. Moreover, it is the law that often touches the lives of the poor and otherwise disempowered persons and communities clinical programs serve. Because clinical faculty are also teaching through methods of critical reflection on practice, clinical teaching provides the opportunity to translate their perspectives on practice into scholarly discourse in interesting and important ways. Some areas of traditional legal scholarship have natural connections to the embedded "bottom up" and critical perspectives of clinical faculty. For example, there is a natural connection between the perspective of clinical faculty on law and the body of "law and society" scholarship that uses empirical methods to investigate legal processes below the radar of appellate case study. Moreover, the focus clinical faculty bring to the problems and perspectives of poor and disempowered people and communities has common ground with critical or narrative-based scholarship, which often uses the experiences of marginalized persons and communities to challenge the ideological assumptions on which law is based. Even when clinical faculty write more traditional doctrinal scholarship, as those in tenure-track positions increasingly do, they are wellpositioned to investigate the ways doctrine will or could be put into practical effect, or the places where different kinds of legal doctrine intersect in the lives of persons affected by the law. 17. The Clinical Law Review periodically publishes an annotated bibliography of scholarly works by clinical faculty on clinical topics. The list is impressive in the quantity of works and breadth of topics addressed. The most recent list, published in 2005, contains over a thousand entries. J.P Ogilvy with Karen Czapanskiy, Clinical Legal Education: An Annotated Bibliography (3d ed.), Clinical L. Rev. (Special Issue No. 2) (Fall 2005).

12 1 24 Journal oflegal Education In addition, the past io to 15 years have seen the growth of a unique body of clinical scholarship which analyzes and debates the merits of various approaches to clinical pedagogy and clinical program design. Unlike doctrinal classes, which have a well-developed stable of casebooks in most subject areas, the teaching materials used in clinical education vary widely. Thorough and well-developed scholarship that focuses on the pedagogical challenges and choices of clinical teaching makes an important contribution to the development of clinical pedagogy and to deeper understandings of law and the legal profession. Since the establishment of the Clinical Law Review in 1994, clinical scholarship has become even more established and influential in advancing a national dialogue about the goals and methods of clinical legal education. Finally, clinical faculty have been encouraged through expansive or alternative promotion and retention standards to contribute to the formation of law and policy through the production of amici briefs, training manuals, policy papers, and other written materials that require both broad research and deep analysis. Because clinical faculty stand with one foot in practice and the other in the academy, they are ideally located to understand, research, and analyze issues of broader law and policy that affect the clients they serve. Although such law and policy reform work is not published in law review journals, it often requires a similar investment of time and intellectual energy, with an eye toward providing guidance and change on specific pending local or national issues. B. ABA Regulation of Clinical Faculty Status As clinical education has become more established within the law school curriculum, the ABA has used its accreditation standards to push law schools to integrate clinical faculty into the life and governance responsibilities of their faculties. Prior to the s, the ABA standards for law school accreditation did not specifically address clinical faculty. In 1984, troubled by the unequal treatment of clinical faculty and its negative effect on advancing clinical legal education, the ABA adopted Accreditation Standard 405(e), which provided, in part, that a law school "should afford to full-time faculty members whose primary responsibilities are in its professional skills programs a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure and perquisites reasonably similar to those provided other full-time faculty members." The ABA interpretations of Standard 405(e) explained that a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure includes a separate tenure track or a renewable long-term contract, but conceded that the new standard did not preclude a limited number of fixed, short-term appointments in a program predominantly staffed by full-time faculty or in an experimental program of limited duration. In 1988, after hearing reports that many law school were still denying clinical faculty opportunities to participate in law school governance, the ABA adopted an 18. For a full history of ABA Standards addressing clinical faculty, see Peter A. Joy & Robert R. Kuehn, The Evolution of ABA Standards for Clinical Faculty, 75 Tenn. L. Rev. 183 (2008).

13 Clinical Faculty in the LegalAcademy 125 interpretation to Standard 405(e) stating that law schools "should" afford full-time professional skills faculty "an opportunity to participate in law school governance" in a manner "reasonably similar to other full-time faculty members." In 1996, the ABA rejected a call to deregulate the status of clinical faculty members and instead strengthened the protection of their status. After determining that the language of Standard 405(e), which provided that professional skills faculty "should" have a role in law school governance, was not having its desired effect, the ABA made the standard mandatory by inserting the term "shall." The current standard now codified as Standard 405(c) states: A law school shall afford to full-time clinical faculty members a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure, and non-compensatory perquisites reasonably similar to those provided other full-time faculty members. A law school may require these faculty members to meet standards and obligations reasonably similar to those required of other full-time faculty members. However, this Standard does not preclude a limited number of fixed, shortterm appointments in a clinical program predominantly staffed by full-time faculty members, or in an experimental program of limited duration.9 Interpretation to ABA Standard 405 explains that a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure "includes a separate tenure track or a program of renewable long-term contracts." Long-term contracts are defined to mean "at least a five-year contract that is presumptively renewable or other arrangement sufficient to ensure academic freedom." Under either approachafter clinical tenure is granted or a long-term contract is provided-the clinical faculty member maybe terminated only for "good cause, including termination or material modification of the entire clinical program." Interpretation explains that law schools "shall afford to full-time clinical faculty members participation in faculty meetings, committees, and other aspects of law school governance in a manner reasonably similar to other full-time faculty members." Interpretation clarifies that law schools are required to "develop criteria for retention, promotion, and security of employment of full-time clinical faculty," and explains that "competence in the areas of teaching and scholarly research and writing should be judged in terms of the responsibilities of clinical faculty." In the shadow of shifting ABA regulations, law schools have developed a variety of types of employment status that control the job security, governance rights, and promotion criteria for clinical faculty. As a result, clinical instructors can be found in positions that range from fully integrated faculty status with governance rights on all issues, to one-year or less, non-renewable contract positions with virtually no participation in law school governance. The next section summarizes the five most identifiable status models that we used as a 19. ABA Standards, supra note 6, at Std. 405(c).

14 126 Journal oflegal Education basis for comparing and evaluating the status of full-time clinical faculty in the legal academy. C. Five Models offull-7ime Clinical Faculty Status There are currently over 1,400 clinical faculty teaching at American law schools in law clinic courses and field placement programs. 0 These individuals hold a wide range of statuses among those law schools," and status can vary within a single school. Presently, most schools employ full-time clinical faculty on different tracks, with some law schools reserving tenured positions, if they exist, for clinical program directors." At the same time, non-tenure-track clinical teachers fill at least part of the clinical faculty at most schools. Each full-time track, or what we call status model, is discussed below. Along with the description of each status model, we examine its teaching, scholarship, governance, and service characteristics. This range of employment models reflects both the different ways law schools have responded to the emergence of clinical education and the shifting regulatory standards that have evolved through the ABA accreditation process. To analyze the status of clinical faculty, we have divided full-time clinical positions into five primary status models: unitary tenure track; clinical tenure track; long-term contract; short-term contract; and clinic fellowships. Although numerous titles and terms suggest that more than five models exist, we selected five models that approximate the range of choices considered or used at almost every law school. This section sets forth a short description of each model and an analysis of the data from CSALE regarding the rights and responsibilities that currently attend each model. i. Unitary Tenure Track For the purpose of our report, "tenure" refers to the "arrangement whereby faculty members, after successful completion of a period of probationary service, can be dismissed only for adequate cause or other possible circumstances and only after a hearing before a faculty committee."3 Clinical faculty members employed on a traditional or "unitary" tenure-track model 2o. Kuehn & Joy, supra note 16, at 98 (citing 2007 statistics). 21. It is worth noting that our research found that schools with the 2o highest-ranked clinical programs in oo, according to U.S. News & World Report, significantly rely on some form of tenure or presumptively renewable long-term contracts for their clinical faculty appointments. Among the top ten clinical programs, 6o percent predominantly employ full-time clinical faculty under traditional tenure lines. Extending out to the 20 top-ranked programs, this percentage drops slightly to 57 percent for traditional tenure and tenure track. Among the top ten clinical programs, 2o percent predominantly employ clinical tenure appointments for their clinical faculty, while 20 percent predominantly rely on long-term contract appointments. None of the top ten clinical programs predominantly use short-term contracts (research on file with Task Force). 22. Kuehn & Joy, supra note 16, at Am. Assoc. of Univ. Professors (AAUP), Issues in Higher Education-Tenure, available at

15 Clinical Faculty in the LegalAcademy 1 27 gain tenure through the same process and enjoy the same security of position and governance rights as tenured non-clinical faculty members. They also enjoy the same academic freedom in their research, teaching, and (presumably, by extension) practice. Unlike clinical tenure, which is defined programmatically and applies only to clinical faculty, the unitary tenure-track model integrates clinical faculty fully into law school faculties. Based on the 2007 CSALE survey, tenured or tenure-track clinical faculty members comprise 27 percent of all full-time clinical faculty nationally,4 and 48 percent of all ABA-accredited law schools employ at least one tenured or tenure-track clinical faculty. Clinical faculty who report being employed on the tenure and tenure track have governance rights identical to other tenured and tenure-track faculty members: ioo percent of tenured clinical faculty reported voting on all matters of faculty governance. The unitary tenure-track model universally includes a requirement to pursue a scholarly agenda. Eighty-three percent of clinical faculty on a unitary tenuretrack model report that retention and promotion standards require scholarly publication of the same type and in the same number as any other tenuretrack faculty members. However, some law schools recognize that the type, subject matter, number, and length of scholarship produced by clinical faculty may differ from traditional classroom faculty and have developed promotion and retention policies to reflect those differences. For example, some schools require the same kind of writing, topics, and journal placement, but reduce the number of required pieces to account for the unique demands on a clinical faculty member's time. Tenure standards at other schools recognize other differences, such as assigning more weight to teaching or crediting other types of writings, such as training manuals and bar journal articles aimed at practitioners, significant advocacy pieces on behalf of clients, or "white papers" that advance sophisticated concepts or policy concerns. Support for scholarship among clinical faculty on a unitary tenure track is consistent with the support provided to non-clinical faculty, but does not always address the unique needs of clinical faculty for support. For example, although ioo percent of tenured and tenure-track clinical faculty reported that they received financial support for scholarship, not all enjoyed summer coverage of cases. Among clinical faculty on the unitary tenure track, only 39 percent report getting funding to employ an attorney to cover cases over the summer. Still, these percentages exceed those for attorney assistance in other job status categories. 2. Clinical Tenure Track The clinical tenure-track model draws on the example of other professional schools-for example, medical, nursing, and dental schools-that provide academic appointments with programmatic tenure for individuals whose primary responsibilities focus on teaching professional skills. Unlike the 24. The data included here is drawn from the 2007 CSALE survey and is on file with the Task Force.

16 128 Journal oflegal Education unitary tenure-track model, which for the most part extends identical status, security, governance, and financial benefits to clinical and non-clinical faculty members, the clinical tenure-track model creates a separate tenure system for clinical faculty, defining different processes and standards for gaining tenure. Approximately 13 percent of clinical faculty are employed under a clinical tenure-track model. Governance rights vary among schools with clinical tenure systems. However, the majority limit those rights for clinical-tenured faculty, compared to their non-clinical colleagues. For clinical-tenured faculty, 63 percent are permitted to vote on all matters of faculty governance; 30 percent are permitted to vote on all matters except the hiring and promotion of nonclinical faculty; 4 percent are permitted to vote on administrative matters only; and 4 percent are not permitted a vote on any matter, but are permitted to attend faculty meetings. For clinical tenure-track faculty, governance participation drops further: go percent are permitted to vote on all matters; 70 percent are permitted to vote on all matters except the hiring and promotion of non-clinical faculty; and io percent are not permitted to vote on any matter but are permitted to attend faculty meetings. In addition, the participation rights of clinical tenure-track faculty on committees are typically more limited than clinical faculty on a traditional tenure track. A factor that further demarcates the clinical tenure-track model from the unitary tenure model is its differing standards for hiring, promotion, and retention. Ninety-seven percent of clinical tenured and tenure-track respondents in the CSALE survey reported differences in the written standards for their retention and promotion as compared to other tenure-track faculty members. For instance, scholarship is less often a requirement. Only 47 percent of clinical faculty on clinical tenure track report scholarship as a job requirement. Among this 47 percent, go percent received financial support for research assistance, as opposed to ioo percent for those on unitary tenure track. Support for summer case coverage also drops in this group: only 15 percent report receiving funding to employ an attorney to cover cases over the summer as opposed to 39 percent among clinical faculty on unitary tenure track. Among clinical faculty on clinical tenure track where scholarship was considered in hiring and promotion decisions, the majority of the differences turned on the acceptance of works that depart from traditional law review articles but carry an equivalent level of intellectual inquiry and rigor.25 In addition to differences in the forms, topics, and placement of scholarship, schools using a clinical tenure track may adjust the quantity of writings to satisfy promotion, tenure, and post-tenure review standards. Seventy-eight percent of clinical faculty on clinical tenure track working under different standards than non-clinical faculty reported that the number of publications they were required to produce for tenure was lower than the number required of their tenure-track colleagues. For example, one school recognized that its 25. For example, 83 percent reported greater acceptance of "applied scholarship" at their law schools and 57 percent reported greater acceptance of briefs and similar works.

17 Clinical Faculty in the IegalAcademy 1!29 traditional scholarship requirement of a major article every other year and a minor article in alternate years was not viable for its clinical tenure-track faculty given their clinical workload. Instead, its clinical faculty must produce a "significant piece of scholarship" and a "less scholarly piece" every six years. In all cases, scholarship standards in clinical tenure-track programs are designed to include the specific expertise, interests, and activities of clinical faculty. Many programs with a clinical tenure track emphasize teaching excellence as the hallmark for promotion and tenure, and some base retention and promotion decisions solely on demonstrated excellence in teaching. Seventyfour percent of clinical faculty on a clinical tenure track reported that their promotion and retention standards place a greater emphasis on the quality of their teaching, compared to their unitary tenure-track colleagues. The promotion and tenure standards at such schools articulate standards for judging excellence in teaching that are grounded specifically in clinical teaching methodology. What sets them apart is the articulation of clinicspecific teaching goals, methods, and tasks. Service expectations can differ and possibly be higher for clinical faculty under a clinical tenure-track system than for those under the traditional tenuretrack system. Importantly, service expectations of faculty under a clinical tenure system typically encompass state and local bar activities, participation in continuing professional education, and participation in litigation or other activities that raise important questions of public policy. In fact, 78 percent of law faculty in a clinical tenure-track model reported that such community involvement counted toward promotion and retention. 3. Long-Term Contract For our report, a "long-term contract" is an employment contract of five or more years in duration and presumptively renewable. In some institutions, the long-term contract is conditioned on the faculty member successfully completing one or more "probationary" periods lasting one to three years. Clinical faculty on contracts of five or more years represent just over Qi percent of full-time clinical faculty. Ninety-five percent of these clinical faculty have security of position in the form of a presumption of renewal. The CSALE statistics that follow address only this 95 percent whose contracts carry that presumption. These individuals typically have fewer governance rights than those accorded tenured faculty. Only 15 percent of these clinical faculty can vote on all faculty governance matters. Sixty-nine percent are permitted to vote on all matters except the hiring and promotion of doctrinal faculty. Five percent are permitted to vote on administrative matters only and ii percent are not permitted to vote on anything, although they can attend faculty meetings. Seventy percent of clinical faculty on long-term contracts are prohibited from participating on committees that address the hiring and promotion of faculty

18 130 Journal oflegal Education who teach doctrinal courses. Moreover, 2o percent are barred from committees focusing on the hiring and promotion of other clinical faculty. Scholarship requirements among this cohort differ significantly from the unitary tenure-track and clinical tenure-track models. Only 21 percent of those on presumptively renewable contracts of five or more years in length report that scholarship is a job requirement. However, for those who were required to produce scholarship, 91 percent receive some form of financial support, but just io percent receive relief from teaching to support scholarly work. Only 2 percent of the cohort who are required to produce scholarship reported receiving funding to employ an attorney to cover cases over the summer to facilitate their scholarly interests. This number stands in stark contrast to the 15 percent of clinical faculty on clinical tenure track and the 39 percent on unitary tenure track who report receiving such funding. 4. Short-Term Contract A "short-term contract" is an appointment that is not presumptively renewable and is less than five years in duration. Fifteen percent of all clinical faculty report being employed on short-term contracts so defined.2' When including clinical faculty employed on all variations of short-term contracts without the presumption of renewal, including adjuncts or staff attorneys, 27 this percentage increases to 2o percent of all clinical faculty. Reliance upon short-term contract clinical faculty is widespread: over 56 percent of all ABAapproved law schools have at least one clinical educator employed on a shortterm contract., 8 Clinical faculty working under short-term contracts generally have, at most, a limited role in faculty governance. Some may be appointed to a faculty committee or invited to attend faculty meetings. However, marks of influence, like membership on an appointments committee or voting rights, are invariably absent. To a much greater degree than those employed under tenure, clinicaltenure, or long-term contract models, short-term contract clinical faculty are deployed in very specific ways. A few schools rely primarily, if not exclusively, 26. There is a small group of clinical faculty who report contracts of less than five years in duration but with a presumption of renewal. This group constitutes just 8 percent of all full-time clinical faculty. The presumption we make with this group-the question was not directly posed in the CSALE Survey-is that these clinical faculty are working in probationary periods akin to pre-tenure non-clinical faculty and pre-tenure clinical tenure-track faculty. Based on this presumption, we have excluded them from the analysis in this section which focuses on clinical faculty working without the job security a contractual presumption of renewal brings. 27. As their title suggests, these attorneys staff a clinic and assist day-to-day lawyering and case supervision functions. They also may have partial or sole responsibility for teaching. Unlike adjuncts, their primary practice is in the clinical program. 28. The ABA's Accreditation Standards recognize that a school may employ "a limited number of fixed, short-term appointments in a clinical program predominantly staffed by full-time faculty members, or in an experimental program of limited duration." ABA Standards, supra note 6, at Std (c).

19 Clinical Faculty in the LegalAcademy 131 on short-term contracts to operate their core clinical program. 5 However, short-term contract clinical faculty are also often used in experimental clinics of limited duration or where the clinic is on uncertain or "soft" (i.e., external or potentially non-recurring) funding. For the overwhelming majority of short-term contract clinical faculty, there is no expectation of scholarly production. Over 85 percent of short-term contract clinical faculty report that they are not required to do scholarship as a condition of their employment. For the minority of short-term contract clinical faculty who are required to do scholarship, 83 percent report receiving support for that effort, such as release time and access to research assistants. The absence of a scholarship expectation presumes that short-term contract clinical faculty will focus exclusively on teaching. 5. Clinical Fellowships One variant of a short-term contract not included in the preceding analysis is a clinical fellowship. Fellowships deserve separate attention because of their special features. A clinical fellowship is terminal, generally designed to prepare the fellows to enter the market for more permanent clinical teaching jobs. Many schools use clinical fellows to expand student clinic slots or provide summer coverage on clinic cases without creating additional permanent clinical positions. Some fellowship programs confer a degree, such as an LL.M. In exchange for teaching, fellows receive stipends or tuition waivers in programs that require fellows to enroll in coursework. Fellowship programs generally do not require scholarship as a condition of employment. However, clinic fellows who want to permanently enter the academy feel implicit pressure to produce scholarship at a level necessary to position them for a long-term appointment. Because they are not permanent members of the law school faculty, clinic fellows very rarely participate in faculty governance. II. Core Principles and Recommendations Having described the vital role of clinical legal education to the academy and profession, as well as the various employment statuses accorded clinical faculty, Part II sets forth the core principles and recommendations which serve as the foundation of our report. The four core principles are: i. Clinical education is a foundational and essential component of legal education; 2. The legal academy and profession benefit from full inclusion of clinical faculty on all matters affecting the mission, function, and direction of law schools; 3. There is no justification for creating hierarchies between clinical and nonclinical faculty; and 29. SeeJoy & Kuehn, supra note 1 8, at 183 n.2.

20 13!2 Journal oflegal Education 4. The standards for hiring, retention, and promotion of clinical faculty must recognize and value the responsibilities and methodologies of clinical teaching. Our primary recommendation is that the four core principles are best realized by a unitary tenure-track model that recognizes and values the responsibilities and methodologies of clinical teaching in its standards for hiring, retention, and promotion. As explained in Part I.B, many schools have attempted to comply with the ABA accreditation standard requiring "a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure" for full-time clinical faculty members by creating clinical tenure-track and long-term contract positions. These efforts have served the useful role of creating space within the academy to articulate standards for hiring, retention, and promotion that are often a better fit for the demands of clinical teaching, service, and scholarship. However, the clinical tenure and long-term contract models do not best advance the core principles because in practice they have resulted in the creation of a class of permanently unequal clinical faculty members who have lesser governance rights and a diminished voice on important issues affecting the mission, function, and direction of their law schools. There is a continued role for short-term contracts and clinical fellowships to meet the demands of program development and the training and mentoring of new clinical faculty, but we recommend that such positions should be limited in number and tailored to the purposes they are designed to serve. Part A that follows expands upon the core principles and how those principles are animated through clinical teaching, scholarship, and service. Part B explicates our recommendations and makes clear why, ultimately, the unitary tenure-track model is the most appropriate model. A. Core Principles CORE PRINCIPLE i: Clinical education is a foundational and essential component of legal education. Clinical legal education is an essential component of a sound and complete legal education. Objective and thoughtful evaluators of legal education have independently identified and documented the value of clinical legal education. Although the case method of teaching effectively instills an understanding of legal analysis and reasoning, it is insufficient to ensure that students have a comprehensive understanding about what it means to be an effective and ethical lawyer.3o As the Carnegie Report has recently highlighted, the case method's reliance on static facts and law devoid of the complexity of actual legal practice serves to "prolong and reinforce the habits of thinking like a 30. See Carnegie Report, supra note 5, at 28. In light of the Carnegie and Best Practices Reports, the case-dialogue method has come under renewed scrutiny. Criticisms surround an overemphasis, in the first two years of law school, on the case method to train students to think and effectively communicate points of view. Missing from the case-dialogue method is precisely what clinical programs are designed to do: give students experiences with clients and help them consider issues of ethics, justice, and fairness in framing their legal arguments. Id. at

21 Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy 133 student rather than an apprentice practitioner, thus conveying the impression that lawyers are more like competitive scholars than attorneys engaged with the problems of clients."3' The case method also provides little opportunity for students to "learn about, reflect on, and practice the responsibilities of legal professionals."32 In contrast, clinical legal education calls upon students to exercise sound professional judgment in a context where client problems, facts, legal rules, and ethical principles are integrated, unrefined, and fluid.33 In working with clients, law students gain the acumen to shoulder responsibilities essential to the profession. They begin to develop competence at integrating substantive legal research and analysis into their interpersonal communication, investigative, advocacy, mediation, negotiation, and collaboration efforts with acute awareness of their ethical imperatives.34 Through learning and applying doctrinal law to address the problems of clients, students meaningfully experience and understand the power, subtleties, and imperfections of legal doctrine and procedure. Importantly, by emphasizing critical reflection at each decisional stage of the representation process, clinical legal education allows students to apply past experience to future circumstances, develop their socio-professional identity, and better appreciate the multivariate dimensions of law and legal practice. In sum, clinical legal education does more than show students "how to think like a lawyer" and takes the next essential step in transforming students into effective and ethical lawyers. Notably, clinical legal education also instills in students the legal profession's quintessential duty-to ensure access to justice for those who might otherwise go under-represented or unrepresented. Law clinics provide countless hours of free or low-cost services to individuals, communities, governmental and public interest organizations through a variety of models such as direct representation, advocacy, reform initiatives, and community education. Clinical legal education gives voice to client goals and empowers clients to navigate difficult legal problems. Additionally, in field placement programs, students may work with governmental agencies and public interest organizations dedicated to ensuring justice. Students observe how institutions succeed or fall short of this promise and face the myriad of public policy considerations at stake. Frequent interactions with these clients and causes 31. Id. at Id. 33. In a seminal article, Tony Amsterdam discusses the uniqueness of real client clinical legal education in the academy and how problems in the real client setting are infused with specific factual details, complex (with personal, economic, institutional, legal, and practical dimensions), and unrefined (unlike simulation materials or appellate cases where the facts are static, established, or already distilled). Anthony G. Amsterdam, Clinical Legal Education: A 21st Century Perspective, 34J. Legal Educ. 612, (1984). 34. ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Legal Education and Professional Development-An Educational Continuum, Report of the Task Force on Law Schools and the Profession (1992) (identifying and explicating the core competencies for the effective practice of law).

22 134 Journal of Legal Education sensitize students to their professional obligation to address the many barriers that prevent financially and socially disadvantaged individuals from access to legal assistance. The benefits of clinical legal education also translate into tangible benefits to the legal profession. In training future lawyers to be both excellent and ethical, clinical legal education fulfills its core obligation to the profession. It builds capacity in its students to meet the demands of practice and engage in lifelong professional development. Clinical legal education aims to accomplish the promise of the legal academy to infuse the profession with the lawyers that society yearns for: courageous, skillful, reflective, humane, and ethical professionals with a well-developed service and work ethic.5 Clinical legal education, when integrated with important non-clinical dimensions of the legal education enterprise, makes the legal academy whole. CORE PRINCIPLE 2: The legal academy and profession benefit from the full inclusion of clinical faculty on all matters affecting the mission, function, and direction of the law school. The unequivocal value of clinical legal education requires law schools to unequivocally value clinical faculty as fully included members in the academic governance of their schools. Equality entails full governance rights that ensure that the voices of clinical faculty directly, consistently, and effectively contribute to the law school's mission, curricular development, faculty development, and academic standards. Governance rights for clinical faculty should extend to all aspects of the legal academy: committee appointments and chairpersonships, voting rights, hiring of faculty colleagues, promotion and retention decisions, and all other important faculty governance functions. By participating fully in faculty governance, clinical faculty members can most meaningfully contribute to the academy's mission, function, and direction, and its delivery of legal education. Full governance acknowledges that a clinical faculty member not only possesses the abilities to evaluate matters essential to the law school, but that including clinical faculty fully in governance can enhance the overall quality of collective decisions. Clinical faculty provide a perspective essential for a thoughtful, balanced, and informed discussion on the character and future of the legal academy. In addition to representing a unique pedagogical viewpoint, clinical faculty are well-situated to observe students' socio-professional development and to give voice to the concerns of the legal profession, the bench, and the surrounding communities. With full governance rights, the perspectives derived from clinical teaching and articulated by clinical faculty are thus appropriately blended into the mix of faculty viewpoints. 35. See Carnegie Report, supra note 5, at 23 ("[S]tudents must learn abundant amounts of theory and vast bodies of knowledge, but the 'bottom line' of their efforts is not what they know but what they can do. They must come to understand thoroughly so they can act competently, and they must act competently in order to serve responsibly.").

23 Clinical Faculty in the LegalAcademy 135 Full faculty governance rights are especially important as law schools embark on reforms in light of the Carnegie Report and other examinations of the shortcomings of traditional legal education. As long as the voices of clinical faculty are institutionally muted, lawyering skills and professional values will remain at the margins of legal education. If law schools seek to transform themselves in a manner that truly responds to the legal profession and societal needs in general, they will benefit greatly by including clinical educators in an equal role in institutional governance. No decisions are as important to the mission, function, and direction of law schools as decisions about hiring, retention, and promotion of law school faculty members. Hiring, retention, and promotion decisions reflect the priorities of a law school through its allocation of resources. Such decisions also shape a law school's identity and constitute the body of faculty members who will govern other important decisions affecting the law school. To exclude clinical faculty members from hiring, retention, and promotion decisions disenfranchises them in ways that have deep and longstanding effects on the shape and direction of a law school program. A vision of equal governance cannot exclude clinical faculty members as a class on those critical judgments. CORE PRINCIPLE 3: There is no justification for creating hierarchies between clinical and non-clinical faculty. In excluding clinical faculty from full governance over issues involving the mission and direction of law schools, especially faculty hiring, retention, and promotion, law schools have created hierarchies in which one class of permanent faculty members makes decisions affecting another class of permanent members, often without reciprocity. Such hierarchies exist without reasonable and adequate justification. The primary argument offered for excluding clinical faculty from full governance rights in hiring, retention, and promotion of non-clinical faculty members is that clinical faculty members lack the expertise tojudge non-clinical faculty members in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service because clinical faculty members' teaching, scholarship, and service requirements differ in important respects from those of non-clinical faculty. The justification most often voiced is that since many clinical teachers do not produce scholarship or produce scholarship that differs from that of traditional classroom professors, they are ill-equipped to evaluate the scholarship of doctrinal faculty. However, this presumed lack of expertise is not always applied uniformly. Although the lack of expertise across faculty sectors is sometimes used to justify the disenfranchisement of clinical faculty, non-clinical faculty members are often presumed qualified to judge the hiring, retention, and promotion of clinical faculty. Such uneven application of the "expertise" justification for disenfranchising some faculty members but not others reveals its irrationality. The expertise rationale is also flawed in its underlying assumptions, which fundamentally misrepresent the nature and complexity of hiring, retention,

24 136 Journal oflegal Education and promotion decisions. The expertise rationale ignores the many important ways in which votes on hiring and, to a lesser extent, retention and promotion are expressions of institutional values and identity, and it underestimates the ability of all faculty members to use tools like peer and student assessment to aid the exercise of their judgment. The expertise rationale assumes that the ability to judge the potential and performance of other faculty members inheres in faculty status, rather than developing over time and through the repeated experience of reviewing potential candidates, hiring them, and assessing how they perform. It ignores the important role that peer evaluation of scholarship plays in assisting faculty members' judgment of promotion and tenure decisions when they evaluate scholarly work outside their area of legal expertise. It also ignores the fact that votes on hiring are often choices among equally well-qualified candidates about the deployment of resources and institutional fit, issues in which all permanent faculty members have a stake and can capably evaluate. Paradoxically, the inequality in governance rights between clinical and nonclinical faculty has become more extreme and less justifiable as law schools have striven to secure the job security of clinical faculty. To comply with ABA regulations that require "a form of security of position reasonably similar to tenure," many schools have created parallel promotional tracks, such as clinical tenure track or presumptively-renewable long-term contract promotional tracks. Like tenure, these parallel promotional tracks create a system of probationary appointment that allows for evaluation and acculturation into law school teaching before being voted into the permanent (or presumptivelypermanent) ranks of the law school faculty. To deny equal governance rights to presumptively-permanent clinical faculty creates a group with long-term institutional ties but without a voice on important matters affecting the law school. A limited number of schools have attempted to avoid this hierarchy by creating separate spheres of faculty governance in which clinical faculty members alone may vote on the hiring, retention, and promotion of other clinical faculty. While this approach escapes the problem of hierarchy, it exaggerates the differences between clinical and non-clinical faculty members and ultimately impoverishes legal education as a whole. Clinical faculty members who have committed to a career of clinical teaching are typically involved in all aspects of the life of an institution. Although they may balance their professional and academic obligations in different ways than traditional non-clinical faculty members, the differences are not so great as to deprive clinical faculty of the ability to understand and appreciate their non-clinical colleagues or to be understood and appreciated by them. Moreover, the entire faculty shares a mission to educate law students as competent and ethical members of the legal profession. The parsing of faculty governance into separate spheres impedes the understanding, appreciation, and integration among the component parts of legal education and makes that common mission more difficult to achieve.